18991210-James Cato

Lesson Plan Analysis

102086 Designing Teaching & Learning
Assignment 2: QT Analysis Template

Evaluate the lesson plan according to the following NSW Quality Teaching model elements.

Evaluation score – refer to NSW QTM Classroom Practice Guide for each element
Comments incl. evidence for evaluation score (2 sentences)

1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Deep knowledge was depicted throughout the majority of the lesson’s content
whilst also sustaining the centre of attention without interruption. This was
achieved through successfully teaching crucial evaluation, summarisation and
information processing skills in relation to historical sources.
1.2 Deep understanding
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 The acknowledgment and assessment of deep understanding was extremely limited
and sallow for majority of the lesson. Student’s presented ideas within a
scaffold/data chart or to other peers with little consultation and expectations set
from the teacher therefore, lacking the authentications of deep understanding.
1.3 Problematic knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Minor problematic knowledge is conveyed as knowledge is mainly extracted
through factual information therefore, producing trivial student interpretation.
1.4 Higher-order thinking
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Lower-order thinking is clearly portrayed as the majority of students are exposed
to facts and information with a requirement of identifying or describing content
knowledge through inquisition questions.
1.5 Metalanguage
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Metalanguage is depicted throughout the lesson, however, lacks the required depth
of knowledge and consistency during the lesson. This was achieved by the
introduction of basic identification and summarisation skills/techniques at the start
of the lesson.
1.6 Substantive communication
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Throughout the lesson, a high level of substantive communication is displayed by
continual interaction of topic-based content, that is reciprocal amongst
peers/teacher.
Quality learning environment
2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Explicit qualitycriteria was only demonstrated through informal questioning of
student’s understanding as the lesson progressed thus, lacking the support and
18991210-James Cato

standards required leaving students to collaborate ideas/answers with other peers.

2.2 Engagement
1–2–3–4– Comments:
5 All students were highly connected throughout the lesson with no interruptions
therefore, ensuring deep involvement of the content presented. This was
accomplished through all student showing constant engagement in answering
questions and contributing to group work.
2.3 High expectations
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Although challenging work may be absent for extensive students, multiple
students reach
high expectations through the acknowledgement of risk and learning fundamental
knowledge/skills involving evaluating, summarising and identifying historical
sources.
2.4 Social support
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Social supportis clearly implemented throughout the classroom as negative
connotations surrounding failure are disregarded. Most students felt included by
gaining mutual respected from peers whilst participating in a group activity and
students were also encouraged by the teacher when asking questions/giving
answers.
2.5 Students’ self-regulation
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 All students
throughout the lesson express autonomy and initiative regarding their
conduct therefore, allowing for no interruptions and time wasted on regulating
student behaviour.
2.6 Student direction
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Student direction is moderately depicted through student’s influences over the lesson via an
establishment of freedom within the activity however, a choice of activities is absent.
3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 Student’s background knowledge is absent from the lesson as new information is
introduced without any opportunity of prior knowledge or skills to be explored and
implemented.
3.2 Cultural knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 The lesson insufficiently incorporated cultural knowledge as diverse social groups
weren’t mentioned in the substance of the lesson thus, no implications of recognition and worth
were expressed.
3.3 Knowledge integration
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
5 As the lesson commenced, knowledge integration is exhibited through the teaching
of fundamental English techniques/skills whilst analysing a historical source (the
ability to identify, evaluate and summarise).
3.4 Inclusivity
1–2–3–4– Comments:
5 Throughout the lesson, all students demonstrate meaningful inclusivity to the
content via supplying response that are simultaneously appreciated and taken
seriously. Unfortunately, minor unevenness in shown to the EALD student as
google translate is an inadequate tool for the level of learning required.
3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments:
18991210-James Cato

5 The lesson fails to make any significant connection to the aspects of life or the
outside world thus, only presenting value for academic success and competence
within the school.
3.6 Narrative
1–2–3–4– Comments:
5 A narrative is utilised at the start of the lesson to exemplify the activity to the
students. The narrative added some significance to the lesson however, only
occurred once throughout the lesson.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

Identify the four NSW QT model elements you are targeting for improvement.

QT model
1) Deep understanding 2) Student direction
3) Explicit quality criteria 4) Cultural knowledge
18991210-James Cato

Lesson Plan – Ancient Rome

Syllabus: HT 4.5 Stage: Stage 4 Topic: Ancient Rome

identifies the meaning, purpose and
context of historical sources

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

Syllabus: HT 4.5 Informal formative Sources and evidence in Evaluate sources,

identifies the meaning, assessment. History. summarise key information
purpose and context of and use the information
historical sources process steps.

Note: Not all activities may be captured by the video. Assume they were covered by the teacher.

Time Teaching and Learning Actions

5 min Lesson Preliminaries/Administration

 Settle students into the classroom.

 Mark the roll.
 Success criteria and learning intention explained.
Lesson Preliminaries/Administration

 Settle students into the classroom.

 Mark the roll.
 Success criteria and learning intention explained.
10 mins Direct Instruction

 Welcome students and explain the how students are going to research sources
about the development and historical features of Ancient Rome.
 Introduce students key inquiry questions such as
 Who is?
 When did this happen?
 How did this change of develop the society?
 Why did this happen?
 What effect did this have?
 Key historical terms and concepts.
Introduction

 A quick discussion asking students to identify any valued prominent

cultural sources
Direct instruction

 Students are introduced to inquiry questions and instructed that they will
be analysing five sources each:
1. Who/what is depicted within the source?
2. When can the source be dated?
3. What is the purpose of the source?
18991210-James Cato

4. What impact did the source have upon Rome?

5. Identify the direct link (relationship and progression) each sources
encompasses with the next (answer question 6 instead of 5 when up to
the last source)
6. Based on all the information gathered from the four Ancient Roman
sources, establish and justify a conclusions regarding the sophisticated
relation between the sources and their significance for Rome.
 Students are also provided with extension questions for excelling students
who finish early:
1. Choose your favourite ancient source.
2. Discuss why the source is significant to you.
3. Answer the previous 1-4 questions.
4. Draw a picture of your ancient source
Example of Instructions

 The teacher uses an ancient aboriginal source (discussing its value) as an

example of how to answer the questions. Whilst answering the questions,
the teacher outlines specific standards, criteria and expectations for each
questions.
30 mins Research and group work
35 mins  Students in groups of 5 explore and use a scaffold to collect evidence from a
range of primary, secondary, text and website sources.
 Students engage with ICT and share notes to develop and organise their findings.
 Students consider the reliability and usefulness of the information from the
sources.
 Adjustment- EALD student to use Google translate to assist with note-making
and information skills.
Research and group work

 Students are given a criteria page regarding each question to emphasize and
reinforce what is expected.
 The teacher outlines how students will be completing five sources in relation
to the previously stated questions. Students will be able to choose and
research the first source based on a significant ancient source that is
derived from the student’s nationality/cultural background (only answer
question 1-4). The next four sources will be preassigned to a certain
category however, students will be able to choose whatever category that
most interest them. The sources are of either buildings or people that are
determined from Roman societal categories including military, religion,
politics, food/health, economy and leisure.
 A scaffold is supplied to students to answer the questions however, an
option is offered to complete the work in a mind map format in their
workbooks.
 Students are spit into groups of five and are asked to collaborate, discuss
and help each other.
 Students engage with ICT and book to attain information, develop ideas
and consider the reliability/usefulness of the materials found.
 Adjustment- EALD student to use Google translate to assist with note-
making and information skills.
18991210-James Cato

 Students are notified that they can sped their desired time on each source
however, the task will need to be completed within 35 minutes.
 The teacher ensures to check on all students throughout the lesson to
examine their progress and give help, advice, encouragement and
commendation where appropriate.

10 mins Questioning

 Students peer share and organise their notes.

 Collaborate on how they will develop their assignments around key ideas, terms
and concepts with teacher.
 Teacher leads brief class discussion to summarise and clarify how they have
used the Information Process Skills to identify, summarise, organise, analyse and
evaluate sources about Ancient Rome.
Presentation of work to the class

 Students are individually asked to present their discovered links,

relationships and progression of the four Roman sources to the class
(question 5). Also, students are asked to present an enhancement of their
explanation through producing a justified, complex and systematic
conclusion about the source’s significance to each other and Rome (question
6).
Questioning

 Collaborate on how they will develop their assignments around key ideas,
terms and concepts with teacher.
 Teacher leads brief class discussion to summarise and clarify how they have
used the Information Process Skills to identify, link, summarise, justify,
organise, analyse, evaluate and conclude sources about Ancient Rome.

5 mins Direct Instruction

0 mins  Teacher consolidation of the learning and success criteria.

This section is not included; the 5 minutes allocated to direction instruction is
added to research and group work.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

HT. 4.5 Informal questioning of student understanding as the lesson
progresses. Students depict acquired knowledge
through their presentation at the end of the lesson.
Also, students are constantly questioned and guided
throughout the lesson by the teacher, explanation of
standards and set a criteria on the questions.
18991210-James Cato

Justification
18991210-James Cato

The Ancient history lesson was overall, relatively successful in delivering and teaching

syllabus 4.5 (identifies the meaning, purpose and context of historical sources) to students.

However, in some regards, the lesson lacked the quality learning environment, significance

and intellectual quality needed. In particular, the class displayed a shortage or absence of

deep understanding, explicit quality criteria, student direction and cultural knowledge as

substantiated via the quality teaching standards.

Deep understanding involves the improvement of intellectual quality through deeper and

sophisticated understanding of content and techniques. Deep understanding is deemed

insubstantial when student’s respond to questions and ideas/content in a limited manner thus,

providing narrow interpretations and basic understanding (Ladwig & Gore, 2003, p. 14). In

regard to the Ancient history lesson, acknowledgment and assessment of deep understanding

was extremely limited and sallow for majority of the lesson. Moreover, poor understanding is

clearly depicted as student’s presented ideas within a scaffold/data chart or to other peers

with little consultation and expectations set from the teacher. I enhanced understanding

throughout the lesson by constantly asking students questions, requesting for students to

develop links/relationships between historical sources, expecting the construction of a

justified, complex and systematic conclusion and by having students present discovered

content/answers to the class at the end of the lesson. Through my alterations to the lesson,

deep understanding was achieved by students demonstrating acknowledgement of central

ideas/concepts to the teacher/class and by students solving problems, establishing

explanations and drawing conclusion in a complex way (Ladwig & Gore, 2003, p. 14).

Additionally, Pearson states that deep understanding is fundamental to pedagogy as

“Pedagogy treats knowledge as something that requires active construction and requires

students to engage in higher-order thinking and to communicate substantively about what

they are learning” (Pearson et al, 2008, p. 31). Through an improvement to pedagogical
18991210-James Cato

strategy and teaching, intellectual quality is enhanced via student’s profound understanding

of information and skills. Overall, it is unarguable that advancements have been created by

enriching the lesson thus, allowing students to master their understanding, communication

skills, writing and ability to answer questions.

A highly explicit quality criteria is achieved by developing an excellent learning environment

via clearly/constantly expressing standards and expectations. Explicit quality criteria is low

when communication regarding expectations of work quality is neglected therefore, resulting

in student’s deficiency of technical or procedural requirements (Ladwig & Gore, 2003, p. 26).

As made evident through the lesson, explicit quality criteria was only demonstrated by

informal questioning of student’s understanding thus, lacking the support and standards

required leaving students to collaborate ideas/answers with other peers. I ensured that explicit

quality criteria was clearly depicted to students throughout the lesson by providing an

example of the activity to the class (before asking them to complete the task), supplying

written criteria in relation to what was expected for each question, enforcing that work was to

be finished by a set time and ensuring to check on all students throughout the lesson to

examine their progress and give help, advice, encouragement/commendation where

appropriate. Explicit quality criteria was modified within the lesson by the alteration of

pedagogical techniques through the teacher setting a specific criteria/standard for all students

and by ensuring frequent assistance to students regarding their progress (Ladwig & Gore,

2003, p. 26). Parallel to my implementations within the lesson, Hammond found that

assessing student’s performance against well-articulated standards allows for guidance,

“Learning, and evaluation in a way that illuminates the goals and processes of learning,

placing teachers in the role of coach and students in the role of performers as well as self-

evaluators” (Hammond et al, 2017, p. 19). This notion was similarly experience by Francisco

Ayala as he attempted to apply standards-based instructions to his foreign language learning

18991210-James Cato

class in an attempt of being a “Rich source of inspirational and practical applications”

(Oxford, 2006, p. 814).

Student direction involves an enriched quality learning environment through student focused

and directed learning resulting in “Maximising student decisions” (Project-Based Learning,

2006, p. 9). Student direction is poor when teachers assume control over all aspects of the

lesson thus, deterring students form making decision and choosing class activities (Ladwig &

Gore, 2003, p. 36). The Ancient history class conveys moderate student direction by student’s

influences over the lesson via an establishment of freedom within the activity however, a

choice of activity, time, pace and criteria is absent. I produced explicit and sophisticated

student direction by presenting multiple ways (a choice to pick a cultural source and 6 Roman

categories between scaffold/mind map) and forms (scaffold or mind map) to complete the

activity. I also provided an extension activity for excelling students and allowed students to

complete each component of the activity at their own pace. The lesson’s pedagogy was

elevated as I produced substantial student direction via supplying a choice of activities, time

spent on components within activities and the pace of the lesson (Ladwig & Gore, 2003, p.

36). Link wise, Peralta portrays how game sense pedagogy allows students to “Enhanced the

development of life skills through giving students ownership, responsibility and autonomy”

(Peralta et al, 2016, p. 258).

Cultural knowledge relates to the implementation of rich information derived from diverse

social groups within a lesson. Low cultural knowledge can be perceived when a lesson

struggles to integrate interpretations, values and recognition of diverse social groups (Ladwig

& Gore, 2003, p. 42). The Ancient History lesson poorly depicts cultural knowledge as

diverse social groups weren’t mentioned in the substance of the lesson thus, implications of

expressing recognition and worth were absent. I greatly implemented cultural knowledge

during the lesson through a Q&A session about sources that were culturally significant to
18991210-James Cato

students, by exemplifying an Aboriginal source to students (depicting its value, importance

and recognition) and by allowing students to research one source derived from their

culture/background. I accomplished extraordinary cultural knowledge through implementing

rich and accepted beliefs, knowledge and practices of diverse social groups via historical

sources (Ladwig & Gore, 2003, p. 42). My modifications established a fundamental

component of Cultural knowledge by “Reframing educator preparation for equity” and

creating resonance. Alterations to the lesson are similarly comparable to Peralta as she

discovered traditional yarning (from Aboriginal traditions) resulted in 89% of teachers

approving that “student rapport, intellectual and social demands of lessons” were improved

(Peralta et al, 2016, p. 259). Moreover, my alterations and the previous activity similarly

impacts students by reducing unfamiliarity regarding history via using cultural sources thus,

through familiarisation and the feeling of comfort, a balanced learning environment is

achieved.

In conclusion, the Ancient history lesson although covering majority of suggestions within

the classroom practice guide, provided an inadequate quality learning environment,

significance and intellectual quality. It is without a doubt that the lesson demonstrated

insufficiency of the three teaching dimensions (NSW) by failing to provide deep

understanding, explicit quality criteria, student direction and cultural knowledge to the class.

The previous notion was exemplified and justified through quality teaching standards and

multiple scholars’ perspectives/opinions.

Reference list
18991210-James Cato

Anonymous. (2006). Project-Based Learning. Gifted Child Today, 29(3), 9.

Darling-Hammond, L., Falk, B., Ancess, J. (2017). Authentic Assessment in Action: Studies

of Schools and Students at Work. Teachers College Press, 15-20.

Fickel, L., Abbiss, J., Brown, L., & Astall, C. (2018). The Importance of Community

Knowledge in Learning to Teach: Foregrounding Māori Cultural Knowledge

to Support Preservice Teachers' Development of Culturally Responsive

Practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(3), 285-294.

Ladwig, L, J., Gore, J. (2003). A classroom practice guide. State of NSW, Department of

Education and Training Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate

RYDE NSW.

Oxford, R. (2006). Teaching Ayala: A thematic, standards-based approach (Francisco

Ayala). Hispania-A Journal Devoted To The Teaching Of Spanish And

Portuguese, 89(4), 814-822.

Pearson, Phil, Webb, Paul, & Mckeen, Kim. (2008). Developing Cognitive Abilities through

Games: A Conundrum? Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 17(1), 30-

37.

Peralta, L., O'Connor, D., Cotton, W., & Bennie, A. (2016). Pre-service physical education

teachers' Indigenous knowledge, cultural competency and pedagogy: A service

learning intervention. Teaching Education, 27(3), 248-266.